“No one has a right to make fun of anyone,” according to Rep. Earnest Smith.

Infuriated by a critic who photoshopped his head onto the body of a male porn star, a Georgia legislator has proposed making such images illegal. Violators would face a $1,000 fine.

“Everyone has a right to privacy,” Rep. Earnest Smith (D-Augusta) said in an interview with FoxNews.com. “No one has a right to make fun of anyone. It’s not a First Amendment right.”

The legislation would define defamation to include cases where someone "causes an unknowing person wrongfully to be identified as the person in an obscene depiction in such a manner that a reasonable person would conclude that the image depicted was that of the person so wrongfully identified." It specifically includes "the electronic imposing of the facial image of a person onto an obscene depiction."

Andre Walker, a blogger at Georgia Unfiltered, has been taunting Smith (NSFW) with images of his face photoshopped into a variety of "obscene depictions."

“I cannot believe Rep. Earnest Smith thinks I’m insulting him by putting his head on the body of a well-built porn star,” Walker told Fox News.

Needless to say, a law making it illegal to photoshop someone's head on the body of a porn star would face long odds under the Constitution. The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech, which absolutely includes a "right to make fun of anyone."

"He’s the conductor of his own crazy train," one of Smith's fellow legislators told Fox News.

Timothy B. Lee
Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times. Emailtimothy.lee@arstechnica.com//Twitter@binarybits

It's a wonder that this muppet (oooh, idea for Photoshop...) can so easily redefine the 1st Amendment, and its specific desire to protect against government interference in speech and other essential rights in a free society, verses how one wonders he would react to conversations about the 2nd. Although, I guess like most of his ilk he's pretty used to ignoring the half of the 2nd that he doesn't like, so...

"The legislation would define defamation to include cases where someone "causes an unknowing person wrongfully to be identified as the person in an obscene depiction in such a manner that a reasonable person would conclude that the image depicted was that of the person so wrongfully identified." It specifically includes "the electronic imposing of the facial image of a person onto an obscene depiction."

I think he might first have to argue that "any reasonable person" would actually conclude that it was him in the pictures.

IANAL but I feel that I have read that the Supreme Court has already said that speech that is to ridiculous to be believed isn't defamation.

In true Ars fashion the party of the representative was left off in this article because it was a Democrat. For the record, I honestly don't care which party they are in, but it doesn't provide some context and I wish Ars would just include the party next to the name of any politician mentioned in an article.

I have a secret, but I can no longer remain silent since the senator legislator has forced the issue.

I have long been an admirer of those senators, all buff and naked under their suits. So hot! Sadly getting pictures of them truly naked is rare (without the assistance of their mistresses or the young gentlemen whose services they pay for).

As such pictures are hard to come by, photoshopping is my last resort. But now Photoshopping them performing perfectly natural acts as nature intended is going to be considered a crime?!?!

In true Ars fashion the party of the representative was left off in this article because it was a Democrat. For the record, I honestly don't care which party they are in, but it doesn't provide some context and I wish Ars would just include the party next to the name of any politician mentioned in an article.

Thanks, I didn't know he was a Democrat and would have included that information had I known.

Really? The First Amendment doesn't give us the right to make fun of anyone?!? Really?!?! The Supreme Court of the United States may have something to say about that!!!! And they did, in 1988!!!

------------------------------485 US 46 - Hustler Magazine et al V. Falwell :-------------------------------------------------------------- In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i. e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Here, respondent is clearly a "public figure" for First Amendment purposes, and the lower courts' finding that the ad parody was not reasonably believable must be [485 U.S. 46, 47] accepted. "Outrageousness" in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here. Pp. 50-57.

797 F.2d 1270, reversed.

REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 57. KENNEDY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

I assume that it is the porn stars who can sue for defamation? I would have thought that photo at the top of the article would be pretty much a career-ender, except for anything involving an executioner's hood, which I assume would reduce his employment opportunities by at least 30%

Shit like this and the anti-science garbage that was written about yesterday is, as someone pointed out, why local elections matter.

There should be some sort of process wherein if a legislator introduces legislation that a 10th grader could easily identify as violating the Constitution, that legislator is kicked out of office. I'm not really serious about this, but I also sort of am.

Another wonderful example of state legislators demonstrating their total lack of brains comes out of Texas, where a lawmaker introduced a bill that would bar the enforcement of any new federal gun control regulations that might come out of the Sandy Hook tragedy and would require the arrest of any federal law enforcement agent trying to enforce such a federal law. Apparently, this person was elected to state government and yet doesn't understand the concept of Federalism.

In true Ars fashion the party of the representative was left off in this article because it was a Democrat. For the record, I honestly don't care which party they are in, but it doesn't provide some context and I wish Ars would just include the party next to the name of any politician mentioned in an article.

As if basic human stupidity knows the bounds of party lines. Next thing you know it'll be, "Oh sure, pick on the south! As if politicians in the north never do anything dumb!"

As a Photoshop-based illustrator, I find this 'shop highly offensive, because it's so incompetently done. ANY reasonable person (or, for that matter, half-blind person) would know that it's a fake. The image has no neck, just a blur where the neck would go, and the head is way too large for the body.

I think the perpetrator of this travesty should go to prison for incompetent 'shopping. Bleh.

As a Photoshop-based illustrator, I find this 'shop highly offensive, because it's so incompetently done. ANY reasonable person (or, for that matter, half-blind person) would know that it's a fake. The image has no neck, just a blur where the neck would go, and the head is way too large for the body.

Yeah, right, let's prohibit it! As well as execute everyone who's making jokes of anyone. We should ban Photoshop also

While it could possibly make sense for the cases where fake photos are intended to make negative impact on someone's reputation, the pictures such that in the article where photoshopping is obvious make the proposal ridiculous.

As a Photoshop-based illustrator, I find this 'shop highly offensive, because it's so incompetently done. ANY reasonable person (or, for that matter, half-blind person) would know that it's a fake. The image has no neck, just a blur where the neck would go, and the head is way too large for the body.

I think the perpetrator of this travesty should go to prison for incompetent 'shopping. Bleh.

Obvious fake is obvious, which is why it works as political satire. See: South Park.

"The legislation would define defamation to include cases where someone "causes an unknowing person wrongfully to be identified as the person in an obscene depiction in such a manner that a reasonable person would conclude that the image depicted was that of the person so wrongfully identified." It specifically includes "the electronic imposing of the facial image of a person onto an obscene depiction."

I think he might first have to argue that "any reasonable person" would actually conclude that it was him in the pictures.

IANAL but I feel that I have read that the Supreme Court has already said that speech that is to ridiculous to be believed isn't defamation.

While I totally believe pictures like the one on this post are satire, and protected from defamation laws, how would you deal with things like pictures of teenagers pasted on to nude, adult bodies? One might naturally conclude that the teenager was engaging in whatever the activity was...

But it's possible that this would already be covered by defamation laws if the 'shop is good enough to be convincing and also clearly defames the person in question. (Keep in mind that defamation, which is essentially lying about someone in public, is already illegal.)

Earnest Smith, you're an ass wipe. Your head looks like something that would pop out of a jack-in-the-box. Now sue me, bitch, since you obviously don't have much of your state's business on your plate to tend to. which i'm sure the people of georgia appreciate.